but please don't use the BS line that guns don't kill people, people kill people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lawnstriper

It is also a fact that " Guns don't kill people , people kill people"
It is not BS , it is a fact . My gun won't jump out of the holster and kill anyone by itself, so even if I were insane , my gun won't do anything . It is an inanimate object without human interaction.

If you're going to say the line is BS, then I'd say you would have to be of the opinion that cars and building ledges (jumpers) kill people too and they should be regulated in that context. It's not the gun. It's not the car. It's who we allow to operate these things... Though, IMO, it's way to easy to get a drivers license in this awesome country. And not that it helps, but I don't think they ever put "cause of death: people" on death certificates

I love my guns and I will not be giving them up. But I am fine that I have to get a CHL, of the hoops I had to jump through to get my Osprey and other AOWs.

I completely agree Obama has only expanded gun rights and this idea he is working to take our guns away is absurd. I'm blue, but you'll never find me without a pistol on my person.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BBob

You've never heard of pipe bombs or those flaming cocktails I forget the name of.

Using guns to kill is just one of millions of ways to kill or maim. It's naive to think that outlawing guns would make any difference.

Plus then only the outlaws would have guns and the honest people who were naive enough to turn in their weapons like they did in Australia would no longer be citizens. They would be subjects and victims.

I honestly don't understand why the damaged liberal mind does not allow them to see this obvious truth.

I agree using guns is just one of zillions of ways and that any sort of "gun give in" would only mean honest folks don't have guns. It's like "no guns allowed" signs. it only applies to the good guys. The bad guys are going to bring it in regardless. I guess the only real solution is to BAN CRIME. That should do it!

Your home made bomb assertion is silly though IMO. They just do not compare to nuts with an AR. I'd happily face off against some idiot with a home made explosive over some idiot with a semi-automatic weapon. While I do agree banning guns would just mean people use other weapons, I do not agree the same scale could be reached. Having said that, nobody is taking my guns.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Azdave

This same doof has 3 little kids. Where does he have all his guns?? Gun safe. So excuse me Mr Criminal while I go open my gun safe so I can blow you away. Stupid.

I got kids too. Having kids does not equate to not having easily accessible yet safely secured firearms. Having your long rifles in a safe doesn't mean you don't have one on your hip or in a quick release box as well. A few GunVaults around the house takes care of it. There are myriad solutions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ALStensby

The only thing that I recall in regards to guns that happened under the last administration was actually an extension of rights (C&C in national parks).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bugkiller

Here's some more gun control / gun owners rights information.
1) Obama said he would not sign any international arms treaty that diminished 2nd admendment rights for gun owners in the U.S.

2) It's estimated there around 300 million firarms in the U.S. There from 70 -80 million gun owners in the U.S. There only about 4.3 million NRA members; only about 1.6% of all gun owners. These statistics are from the NRA.

3) Before Obama was elected in '08 the NRA convinced gun owners into believing Obama was going to restrict gun sales. Gun sales went through the roof. After he was elected, Obama signed only two gun control bills. One made it legal for someone with a concealed carry permit to carry a gun on an Amtrac train. The 2nd bill made it legal for someone with a permit to carry in a national park. This is all he has done in regards to gun control.
So then the NRA sread the word, Obama is waiting to get re-elected before taking away all the guns. Again, gun sales went through the roof before the election. Sturm Ruger had to refuse any new orders because they couldn't keep up with the supply.
The idea Obama was waiting for a 2nd term to enact restrictive gun control was pretty stupid, because his re-election was not a sure thing. I think that if Romney didn't get caught on film saying he didn't care about half of Americans, he would have been elected.

So why does the NRA do this? Many people believe their main purpose is advocacy for 2nd admendment rights. It's not. The NRA's main purpose is marketing gun and hunting and shooting accessories. The more guns sold, the more firearm related merchandise the sell. Sturm Ruger even paid the NRA for the rights to sell NRA edition guns.

As I said before, all these scare tactics are just another way for politicians divide us with a wedge issue. And as far as people needing guns to prevent a government takeover, don't kid yourself. This is not the 1770s. It's not 1861. A bunch of militia members are not going to stand up to our modern day law enforcement let alone the military. They won't even have time to organize before they'll be shut down. One platoon of Marine Force Re-con would wipe out 100 civilians playing armyman.
Relax, no one out there in power is out to take your guns away. Even after the shootings in Arizona and Colorado, gun control didn't even come up in the campaign, no matter how hard the NRA tried to make it happen.
I've been a gun owner for about 45 years, and am ex-member of the NRA, because of their political views.

I'm pretty into my guns, but I also accept these facts as facts. Going after Obama is fine, but acting like he is out for our guns is parroting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lawnstriper

You all can continue to argue amongst yourselves if you wish , I am done .

Duh. "The Company" doesn't need to be the original founders of it... duh, but your 'the workers should own the company' view is ridiculous, they WORK THERE, they didn't 'build that'. If 'those' workers don't appreciate the job somebody else will.

I'm beginning to wonder if you speak English. Where did I say the workers owned anything? I told you the workers produce the goods that create the wealth that feeds our gov't heavy economy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lance

Right, Romney supporters were the rich looking for tax breaks. Not patriotic constitutionalists looking to return this country to its founding principles. It's just those evil rich you so dispise trying to keep what they've earned, terrible!

There you go again assuming the things Rush has planted in your malleable mind. I don't hate anyone and I'm fond of keeping my bread as much as the next guy. That wasn't the point. The point was many don't care two craps about returning to some wild west fantasy you have, they simply want the guy that let's the keep the most. That's a fact, not an insult.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lance

Solution?? You aren't looking for a solution if you support Obama, he's only got plans to increase the problem. As for military spending, I'd cut it A LOT, and don't agree with the republican view of more and more military spending.

Well then you don't have a choice. You got a guy who would transfer wealth to the defense sector vs a guy who would transfer wealth to the education and productive sectors. Either way, it's a transfer which you equate with Socialism.

I personally think improving our nation's education and productivity are the best things we can do to lower our debt and improve our standard of living. It has zero to do with personal gain or Socialism. We've just witnessed too many Romneys getting massively wealthy selling out our country and it's time to reign that in a little and give real Capitalism a chance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lance

Oh, let me stop 'whining' now, so I can listen to your 'wisdom'... funny how someone who has a different view is 'whining' and someone who supports your liberal agenda is brillant.

I don't offer wisdom, I offer facts. You can make of them what you will, but they are reality. I have no agenda, except to make those of you who are prone to parrot talking heads consider reality if only for an instant or two per day.

Oh, let me stop 'whining' now, so I can listen to your 'wisdom'... funny how someone who has a different view is 'whining' and someone who supports your liberal agenda is brillant. That's very big-boy thinking of you.

From Lance:
I've got Sirius radio in my car so I have a lot more choices than Rush Limbaugh... I find the banter on both sides mostly boring as they preach to their individual choirs.

...
You got that right. KGO radio in San Fransisco was one of the pioneer talk radio stations, with a mix of liberals, conservatives, and centrist hosts. If you wanted to get right on the air, you would if you had a dissenting opinion to the point the host was making, and it made for more interesting radio.
Like you said, now everyone seems to want to hear radio with their opinion expressed, so they can wrap their arms around themselves, and say, see I"M right. YAWN.
I enjoy respectful political discourse, with none of the name calling, and insulting rhetoric.
The bug in my brain was a good one though. Bugkiller is my bike, because that's what it does, espescially if I've just washed it. I think the local vector control agency should issue me an opened purchase order for gas for all of their work I do.

Like you said, now everyone seems to want to hear radio with their opinion expressed, so they can wrap their arms around themselves, and say, see I"M right. YAWN.

An opinion has no right or wrong. If you have an opinion that X should be state controlled or Y privately controlled, it is an opinion. May one way save more money or create less bureacracy, sure.

What you often read here isn't that. It is a complete disconnect from reality. The statements made range from stupid to bizarre. When the hyperbolic types are confronted with facts, they flip out and demand that anyone that doesn't believe in what they've been sold (by brainiacs like Glenn Beck) is a Communist that is out to take their stuff.

Facts OTOH don't have two sides. If one wants to believe in Santa Claus, that's fine. It's when one insists that *everyone* believe in Santa and give Santa equal time in science textbooks, that people with common sense need to relay of few facts while the maniacs scream like a demon getting sprayed with Holy water.

I'm beginning to wonder if you speak English. Where did I say the workers owned anything? I told you the workers produce the goods that create the wealth that feeds our gov't heavy economy.

There you go again assuming the things Rush has planted in your malleable mind. I don't hate anyone and I'm fond of keeping my bread as much as the next guy. That wasn't the point. The point was many don't care two craps about returning to some wild west fantasy you have, they simply want the guy that let's the keep the most. That's a fact, not an insult.

Well then you don't have a choice. You got a guy who would transfer wealth to the defense sector vs a guy who would transfer wealth to the education and productive sectors. Either way, it's a transfer which you equate with Socialism.

I personally think improving our nation's education and productivity are the best things we can do to lower our debt and improve our standard of living. It has zero to do with personal gain or Socialism. We've just witnessed too many Romneys getting massively wealthy selling out our country and it's time to reign that in a little and give real Capitalism a chance.

I don't offer wisdom, I offer facts. You can make of them what you will, but they are reality. I have no agenda, except to make those of you who are prone to parrot talking heads consider reality if only for an instant or two per day.

Workers are part of a company's wealth creation.. duh again, but you liberals don't seem satisfied unless the worker is part owner...

The money of the people should go to the specific legal purposes of the fed. gov't, such as defense, which is THE primary purpose of the fed. gov't.... the other stuff is best done by the states... all your gov't mandates/regulations/dept. of ed., etc., haven't done anything to improve education... that's so 'wild west' of me.

You talk about improving the nation's "productivity", you should have been a Romney supporter, Obama's policies only hurt business/productivity.

You certainly DO have an agenda... a liberal/socialist one, that's clear. Your FACTS don't seem to jive with the reality we can see... you can put up your pie charts and gov't figures... half of us can SEE what's happening in this economy, and can HEAR Obama's PLAN to "Tax the rich".... and it rings as hollow as his empty suit.

The 'agenda' on the other side is to try to follow The Constitution, now THAT's a CRAZY idea.

Workers are part of a company's wealth creation.. duh again, but you liberals don't seem satisfied unless the worker is part owner...

Earth to Lance. Workers are responsible for ALL of a company's wealth creation. GM is a publically owned company. I can have a gazillion shares of ownership and I still won't lift a finger to design, test, prototype, or produce ANYTHING. Are you seriously this clueless or do you just like to keep this going?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lance

The money of the people should go to the specific legal purposes of the fed. gov't, such as defense, which is THE primary purpose of the fed. gov't.... the other stuff is best done by the states... all your gov't mandates/regulations/dept. of ed., etc., haven't done anything to improve education... that's so 'wild west' of me.

I think that there's an argument to be made for that. I'm not wildly opposed to the notion. In fact, in so far as states EXPAND liberties above and beyond what the Feds do, I'm for the whole states rights thing. If Colorado says they don't mind that a "free" American can grow a plant in their state, then I support the Coloridians.

From time to time you admit that having regulations that govern pollution, food and drug safety etc are things you don't find completely abhorent. I have expressed the logisitics concerns with having 50 of various gov't agencies versus 1 federal version in your Disunited States. You seem to dodge this question whenever it's raised.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lance

You talk about improving the nation's "productivity", you should have been a Romney supporter, Obama's policies only hurt business/productivity.

That isn't an argument. It is a fact free opinion. It's about as intellectual as stating that you believe that Santa will bring you 30 virgins dressed in fuzzy red outfits.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lance

You certainly DO have an agenda...

You are free to continue to believe in Santa too if that floats your boat.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lance

The 'agenda' on the other side is to try to follow The Constitution, now THAT's a CRAZY idea.

Really? So where in the Constitution does it say that Homosexual people shall have less rights under the law the Heterosexual people?
And why don't you consider the Conservative stance on this "transforming" the country?

Reading and comprehending must be one of the greatest gifts a person can have. I have stated on numerous occasions that Pelosi, Reid, Boehner and McConnell are the biggest obstructionists in the US. My last post pointed out that currently Boehner and McConnell have moved to the top of the POS politician list. Both are useless and are doing a great deal of damage in getting a deal done. This is a perfect example of what is wrong in DC.

Lance I admire your dedication to your cause but I think it is time to hang with a few folks from the other side. Too much of any one thing is not good for you

You talk about improving the nation's "productivity", you should have been a Romney supporter, Obama's policies only hurt business/productivity.

BLATANT LIE ALERT!!!!
Obama's policy's HELP business and productivity in certain BUSINESS areas. THIS was saddlebag's argument. They may not be the areas YOU (Lance Rushbaugh) "thinks" should benefit but they ARE still businesses. This is not as black and white as (it appears) too many conservatives believe.

Bottom line is that Obama is routing $'s to programs that Romney would not have supported. Tough titties, Obama WON so he has the ability (AND RIGHT) to route funding where HE wants it to go. Rom-idiot would have done the same thing to areas HE favored which (believe it or not) would NOT have been good for the AMERICAN BUSINESSES but would have been good for businesses in general (e.g. those businesses that leverage off-shore in order to avoid tax & other US-oriented costs).

By now it should OBVIOUS even to the MOST hard headed that Obama won and Romney lost but it seems that Lance still thinks that the election is still on. In true democratic fashion I for one move that this thread be closed. Can I get someone to second me?

BLATANT LIE ALERT!!!!
Obama's policy's HELP business and productivity in certain BUSINESS areas. THIS was saddlebag's argument. They may not be the areas YOU (Lance Rushbaugh) "thinks" should benefit but they ARE still businesses. This is not as black and white as (it appears) too many conservatives believe.

Bottom line is that Obama is routing $'s to programs that Romney would not have supported. Tough titties, Obama WON so he has the ability (AND RIGHT) to route funding where HE wants it to go. Rom-idiot would have done the same thing to areas HE favored which (believe it or not) would NOT have been good for the AMERICAN BUSINESSES but would have been good for businesses in general (e.g. those businesses that leverage off-shore in order to avoid tax & other US-oriented costs).

By now it should OBVIOUS even to the MOST hard headed that Obama won and Romney lost but it seems that Lance still thinks that the election is still on. In true democratic fashion I for one move that this thread be closed. Can I get someone to second me?